Three days ago:
DSC_7641.JPG
 

Attachments

  • DSC_7641.JPG
    DSC_7641.JPG
    181.8 KB · Views: 889
Always Be Closing said:
I just heard a rumour that Main & Main have sold the site...can't find anything to prove it though. The building was originally slated to be a rental building, but as soon as the new rent rules were unleashed by the Liberals, I predicted it would be converted to resale condos. Anyone have real definitive info?
Click to expand...

Main and Main have confirmed that it is a condo:

"The Final Staff Report confirms that this application initially registered as a condo. As the market can change, and if the rental market is doing well, then the units can change to be rental. Please reach out the developer for confirmation on this development:

The application proposes 5,091m2 of retail space in a base building fronting the corner of Dundas Street West and Aukland Road and 378 condominium apartment units in a 38 storey tower above.

RooieMain and Main(416) 530-2438 x. 203
rooie@mainandmain.ca"

http://www.councillordiciano.ca/updates/development/dundas-aukland-main-main-development-schedule/


This seems to suggest that it was always a condo, though there was never a sales office. Certainly you, I, and everyone else here was under the impression that it was a rental, but the staff report does say it's a condo. I'm curious now, where did the rental rumour come from? Every article written on it says it's rental, but nothing in the application indicates that it ever was.
 
@BjamesT, the older information you cite above from other sources may have been lazily published with no proofing, I can tell you that Main and Main intend to operate the building as a rental, confirmed this afternoon to me by their Vice President of Development.

The fact that it is under construction without having gone into sales, is—99% of the time—a quick tell. Currently, only The Daniels Corporation consistently starts building condos without pre-sales, (but by this stage with equipment onsite, they too would be selling). If a building is going up and there has been no condo marketing, it's a good bet it's not a condo.

42
 
interchange42 said:
@BjamesT, the older information you cite above from other sources may have been lazily published with no proofing, I can tell you that Main and Main intend to operate the building as a rental, confirmed this afternoon to me by their Vice President of Development.

The fact that it is under construction without having gone into sales, is—99% of the time—a quick tell. Currently, only The Daniels Corporation consistently starts building condos without pre-sales, (but by this stage with equipment onsite, they too would be selling). If a building is going up and there has been no condo marketing, it's a good bet it's not a condo.

42
Click to expand...
So I'm not sure what a development application for a rental looks like, though I'm sure I could find one. And for sure I can't imagine these guys building a condo without any sales. Where I'm confused is that nowhere in Main and Main's marketing, nor in the development applications does it mention rental. But the application does specifically describe the development as a condo.

"the older information you cite above from other sources may have been lazily published with no proofing", yeah, well that's DiCiano's website, so who the hell knows what's accurate there? But it's concerning that he, as the Councillor for Ward 5, as of March 2018, is telling area residents it's a condo.

Is it possible that an agreement was made, but not documented, between SPA and now that ensures this is a rental? Like how do you get approval for a condo and build a rental?
 
rezoning applications, or even site plan applications, cannot lock in a tenure type. A developer could go through the entire process, get their SPA, get permits, and be half way through construction, then decide they want to go condo and file a plan of condominium, or vice versa. I've seen both.

The use type is simply apartment residential, regardless of its ownership structure.
 
innsertnamehere said:
rezoning applications, or even site plan applications, cannot lock in a tenure type. A developer could go through the entire process, get their SPA, get permits, and be half way through construction, then decide they want to go condo and file a plan of condominium, or vice versa. I've seen both.

The use type is simply apartment residential, regardless of its ownership structure.
Click to expand...

Then why would you even put in a tenure type in the application? What's the point?
 
You get brownie points with the municipality if you pretty promise them that it'll be rental. There are no actual enforcing regulations to enforce it though.
 
BjamesT said:
So I'm not sure what a development application for a rental looks like, though I'm sure I could find one. And for sure I can't imagine these guys building a condo without any sales. Where I'm confused is that nowhere in Main and Main's marketing, nor in the development applications does it mention rental. But the application does specifically describe the development as a condo.

"the older information you cite above from other sources may have been lazily published with no proofing", yeah, well that's DiCiano's website, so who the hell knows what's accurate there? But it's concerning that he, as the Councillor for Ward 5, as of March 2018, is telling area residents it's a condo.

Is it possible that an agreement was made, but not documented, between SPA and now that ensures this is a rental? Like how do you get approval for a condo and build a rental?
Click to expand...

The Planning Act does not govern tenure. This is not a condition of Zoning By-law Amendment or Site Plan Control in typical circumstances.
 
At the last councillors meeting here at 35 Viking Lane we were told that it will be 2 to 3 years of construction. Closer to 3 years.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top